Western Transmission Corp. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
| Decision Date | 30 July 1952 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 29490. |
| Citation | 18 T.C. 818 |
| Parties | WESTERN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. |
| Court | U.S. Tax Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
1. During the taxable years petitioner's income was derived primarily from rentals on its property leased to a partnership composed principally of petitioner's five shareholders. Held, petitioner is a personal holding company as defined in sections 500-502 of the Internal Revenue Code.
2. Petitioner failed to file personal holding company returns for each of the taxable years relying upon its tax advisers. Held, petitioner's failure to file the required returns was due to reasonable cause and was not due to neglect, and petitioner is not subject to a penalty therefor. John A. Buchanan, Esq., for the petitioner.
John L. King, Esq., for the respondent.
Respondent determined personal holding company surtax deficiencies and 25 per cent delinquency penalties for 1943 and 1945, inclusive, as follows:
+--------------------------------+
¦ ¦Personal holding company ¦
+------+-------------------------¦
¦ ¦surtax ¦
+------+-------------------------¦
¦Year ¦Deficiency ¦25 per cent ¦
+------+-----------+-------------¦
¦ ¦ ¦penalty ¦
+------+-----------+-------------¦
¦1943 ¦$8,863.64 ¦$2,215.91 ¦
+------+-----------+-------------¦
¦1944 ¦1,224.20 ¦306.05 ¦
+------+-----------+-------------¦
¦1945 ¦3,212.11 ¦803.03 ¦
+------+-----------+-------------¦
¦Totals¦$13,299.95 ¦$3,324.99 ¦
+--------------------------------+
Two issues are presented: (1) whether petitioner was a personal holding company during the years 1943-45, inclusive, within the meaning of sections 500-502 of the Internal Revenue Code; and (2) whether petitioner's failure to file personal holding company returns for each of the taxable years, within the time prescribed by law, was due to reasonable cause.
Some of the facts were stipulated.
The stipulated facts are so found and are incorporated herein.
The petitioner is a corporation existing under the laws of the State of Michigan. For the calendar years 1943-45, inclusive, it filed timely corporation income and declared value excess-profits tax returns with the collector of internal revenue for the district of Michigan. Each of such returns was prepared for the petitioner by W. U. Ayling, a certified public accountant. In each return the question, ‘Is the corporation a personal holding company within the meaning of section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code?‘ was answered, ‘No.‘ Each return stated petitioner's business was ‘Plant Rentals.‘
During the taxable years the entire outstanding capital stock of the petitioner was owned as follows:
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦Stockholder ¦Per cent ¦
+------------------------------------------------------------------+----------¦
¦Oscar A. Palm ¦39.44 ¦
+------------------------------------------------------------------+----------¦
¦Victor Palm and Elsie Palm, his wife, as tenants by the entireties¦39.44 ¦
+------------------------------------------------------------------+----------¦
¦Edward Grace and Emma Grace, his wife, as tenants by the ¦21.12 ¦
¦entireties ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On or about August 1, 1942, a partnership was formed under the name and style of Western Manufacturing Company, whose members and their respective interests were as follows:
+----------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦Per cent ¦ ¦Per cent ¦
+-------------+----------+----------------+----------¦
¦Partner ¦interest ¦Partner ¦Interest ¦
+-------------+----------+----------------+----------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-------------+----------+----------------+----------¦
¦Oscar A. Palm¦39.440 ¦Margaret Palm ¦7.888 ¦
+-------------+----------+----------------+----------¦
¦Victor Palm ¦7.888 ¦Edward Grace ¦5.280 ¦
+-------------+----------+----------------+----------¦
¦Elsie Palm ¦7.888 ¦Emma Grace ¦5.280 ¦
+-------------+----------+----------------+----------¦
¦Gerald Palm ¦7.888 ¦Theodore Grace ¦5.280 ¦
+-------------+----------+----------------+----------¦
¦Evelyn Palm ¦7.888 ¦Majorie Buchanan¦5.280 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------+
Victor Palm was a nephew of Oscar A. Palm and the husband of Elsie Palm. Gerald, Margaret, and Evelyn Palm were children of Victor and Elsie Palm. Edward and Emma Grace were husband and wife and Theodore Grace and Marjorie Buchanan were their children. All of the members of the partnership were of full age.
The terms of the partnership commenced as of August 1, 1942, and continued for 1 year, or until such other time ‘as may be fixed by future amendments to this agreement.‘ The term of the partnership was not extended by any formal amendments to the partnership agreement.
On or about August 1, 1942, petitioner leased its manufacturing facilities consisting of a plant, machinery, and equipment to the partnership. The lease was for a term of 1 year from August 1, 1942, at a rental of $24,000. There was no formal extension of the lease agreement.
During the taxable years the partnership operated a manufacturing business on the premises leased from petitioner and paid the latter $24,000 a year rent therefor. The partnership took over petitioner's contracts for work in process, as well as its manufacturing facilities, and payment for work done after the transfer was made to the partnership and not to the petitioner.
Petitioner's affairs were in charge of two of its officers, Edward Grace, vice president, and Victor Palm secretary-treasurer. These two officers, together with Oscar Palm, constituted petitioner's board of directors. Petitioner's officers and directors were not conversant with Federal tax laws, and independent certified public accountants and legal counsel were employed to handle petitioner's tax matters. The accountants and legal counsel had access to all of petitioner's books and records, and no information was withheld from them. At all times material hereto, John A. Buchanan, an attorney, counseled petitioner on tax matters, and W. U. Ayling was employed by petitioner as a certified public accountant.
On its Federal income tax returns for the taxable years, petitioner reported gross income and rental income as follows;
+-------------------------------------+
¦Year ¦Gross income ¦Rental income ¦
+------+--------------+---------------¦
¦1943 ¦$24,314.51 ¦$24,148.00 ¦
+------+--------------+---------------¦
¦1944 ¦24,466.00 ¦24,066.00 ¦
+------+--------------+---------------¦
¦1945 ¦24,400.00 ¦24,000.00 ¦
+-------------------------------------+
No personal holding company returns on Form 1120H were filed by petitioner for any of the taxable years.
The first issue is whether petitioner is a personal holding company within the meaning of the applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 501 defines a personal holding company, and section 502 sets forth the items of gross income which constitute personal holding company income. In the instant case, we are primarily concerned with whether petitioner meets the gross income requirement contained in section 501(a).1
We are also concerned with whether petitioner meets the stock ownership requirement of such section, but our findings show that petitioner's stock was owned during the taxable years by five individuals (two husbands and their wives, and one other individual). In view of this ownership of petitioner's stock, there can be no question but that the 50 per cent stock ownership requirement of the statute is fully met and satisfied; and we do not understand that petitioner contends otherwise.
The gross income requirement (that at least 80 per centum of the corporation's gross income for the taxable years is personal holding company income as defined in section 502) will be met if it can be said that the annual rentals received by petitioner under the lease, fall within the definition contained in section 502. This is true for the reason that the gross income reported by petitioner for each of the taxable years was almost wholly rental income.
Section 502 provides that the purposes of this subchapter the term ‘personal holding company income‘ means the portion of gross income which consists of the eight different items listed in subsections (a) to (h), inclusive. Subsection (f), the application of which is here in dispute, provides as follows:
(f) USE OF CORPORATION PROPERTY BY SHAREHOLDER.— Amounts received as compensation (however designated and from whomsoever received) for the use of, or right to use, property of the corporation in any case, where, at any time during the taxable year, 25 per centum or more in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation is owned, directly or indirectly, by or for an individual entitled to the use of the property; whether such right is obtained directly from the corporation or by means of a sublease or other arrangement.
In applying this subsection, it should be noted that subsection (g) specifically states that ‘rent,‘ as provided for in (g), does not include amounts constituting personal holding company income under subsection (f).
Our findings show that the amounts received by petitioner from the partnership during the taxable years constituted ‘compensation for the use of, or right to use, property of the corporation * * * ,‘ as specified in the first part of section 502(f). Such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pleasanton Gravel Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...Webster Corp. v. Commissioner, 25 T.C. 55, 60-61 (1955), affd. per curiam 240 F.2d 164 (2d Cir. 1957); Western Transmission Corp. v. Commissioner, 18 T.C. 818, 822-823 (1952). 7 Since we find that there has been a failure of compliance with the first sentence of section 543(a)(6), it is unn......
-
Johnson Inv. & Rental Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...Webster Corp. v. Commissioner, 25 T.C. 55, 60-61 (1955), affd. per curiam 240 F.2d 164 (2d Cir. 1957); Western Transmission Corp. v. Commissioner, 18 T.C. 818, 822-823 (1952); see Burnet v. Harmel, 287 U.S. 103 (1932). In Logan Coal & Timber Assn. v. Helvering, 122 F.2d 848, 850 (3d Cir. 19......
-
Med.-Surgical Grp., Inc. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...Fourth & Railroad Realty Co., 25 T.C. 458; Amo Realty Co., 24 T.C. 812; O. Falk's Department Store, Inc., 20 T.C. 56; and Western Transmission Corporation, 18 T.C. 818. To remedy the unintended tax pitfall occasioned by section 502(f), section 223 was enacted as a part of the Revenue Act of......
-
AMERICAN VALVE COMPANY v. United States
...Ky., 83 F.Supp. 945; Electroline Sales Co., 10 T.C.M. 113, 115; O. Falk's Department Store, Inc., 20 T.C. 56, 63; Western Transmission Corporation, 18 T.C. 818, 822, 823. 3 26 U.S.C. § 503(a) (2); Furniture Finance Corporation, 46 B.T.A. 4 Frederick Smith Enterprize Co. v. Commissioner of I......